Fraud in Online Surveys: Evidence from a Nonprobability, Subpopulation Sample
Andrew M. Bell and Thomas Gift

Journal of Experimental Political Science

For this analysis, survey sample responses were coded based on the degree to which they were assessed as valid responses. 

For this survey, responses were coded as "valid" on "invald based on 

Two screeners were enmployed to confirm the authenticity of respondents with self-identified Army experience.

First, a "knowledge" question was employed that required respondents to use knowledge about the practice of saluting, one of the most essential elements of military protocol (and one that offier and enlisted members of the Army are required to learn within the first days of their initial training). Responses that failed to provide the correct answer to this knowledge question were coded as invalid. (See online appendix for more information regarding this knowledge question). 

Second, we asked respondents to report specific information on their Army career and background including: highest rank achieved, source of officer commission, deployment years and locations, and unit type. Responses that provided information contravening federal law or Army personnel policy were coded as "non-viable." Responses that provided information that did not contravene the specific wording of federal law or Army personnel policy but were highly improbable or unlikely under Army policies were coded as "improbable." (See online appendix for more information regarding this career background question). 

In the survey datasets, responses are color-coded according to the following categories: 
- Green = Valid (passed knowledge screen; valid demographics)
- Orange = Failed knowledge screen
- Red = Passed knowledge screen, Non-viable demographics
- Yellow = Passed knowledge screen, Improbable demographics

Survey data is split into two datasets: Round 1 and Round 2 responses. See attached Excel file for coded survey data. 











